This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Should ALL laws sunset after 10 years?

Originally Posted by Grand Mal

Reviewing laws every ten years sounds like acknowledging the incompetence of legislators. How about making it take ten years to pass a law? That way it couldn't be a law serving someone's political agenda.

Hadn't thought about it that way.

I have long thought, however, that we need to have a six month moratorium after a high profile tragedy before we enact a new law based on said tragedy. We end up with way too many bad laws by letting emotion and expediency rule the day.

If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

Re: Should ALL laws sunset after 10 years?

Originally Posted by radcen

Hadn't thought about it that way.

I have long thought, however, that we need to have a six month moratorium after a high profile tragedy before we enact a new law based on said tragedy. We end up with way too many bad laws by letting emotion and expediency rule the day.

I agree.
We also need to impress on our legislators that laws don't prevent anything, never have. And we need to somehow erase from the public perception the idea that making a law equals being tough on crime. Or terrorism.

"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid people. I meant that stupid people are generally Conservatives."
-John Stuart Mill-

Re: Should ALL laws sunset after 10 years?

I have to admit, it's an interesting idea. But I think it may very well be that congress critters'll figure a way around it.

Now we have huge omnibus budget / spending bills that have every manner of tacked on crap, as is usual when designed by committee.

A package of laws comes up for review / renewal, and wouldn't it be likely that the same approach would be applied? Just a big package of laws all renewed by default. But a check mark in that box and move on?

On the other hand, it opens the door for ever more tweaking of existing laws. Can you imagine the nation constantly running after all the changes to the laws?

I guess it really depends on what level of 'review' the laws get. The best possible review would be a full cost / benefit analysis, as well as an impact analysis, i.e. is the law doing what it was supposed to do?

But something tells me that if a law is really damaging someone, or something, or had some really unforeseen negative effects, that it'd be tweaked (band aided) way before 10 years past.

Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

Re: Should ALL laws sunset after 10 years?

There are so many criminal laws and regulations at the Federal level alone that no person or agency can tell exactly how many there are and can only estimate. Couple that with the fact that we entered a legislative era of passing laws without reading them and it becomes a major problem in a country where ignorance of the law is not a defense. At minimum, laws should be reviewed if only to find out what they are and I suspect the vast majority of our legal code could sunset without anyone even noticing it was gone. Personally, I think its ridiculous to have more laws than any one person can have at least an elementary understanding of.

Re: Should ALL laws sunset after 10 years?

Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan

That is all they will do is "review" nothing more.

They can then advise and recommend to the legislature.

__________________________________________________ _
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Re: Should ALL laws sunset after 10 years?

I have to admit, it's an interesting idea. But I think it may very well be that congress critters'll figure a way around it.

Now we have huge omnibus budget / spending bills that have every manner of tacked on crap, as is usual when designed by committee.

A package of laws comes up for review / renewal, and wouldn't it be likely that the same approach would be applied? Just a big package of laws all renewed by default. But a check mark in that box and move on?

On the other hand, it opens the door for ever more tweaking of existing laws. Can you imagine the nation constantly running after all the changes to the laws?

I guess it really depends on what level of 'review' the laws get. The best possible review would be a full cost / benefit analysis, as well as an impact analysis, i.e. is the law doing what it was supposed to do?

But something tells me that if a law is really damaging someone, or something, or had some really unforeseen negative effects, that it'd be tweaked (band aided) way before 10 years past.

There ya go. There's the workaround. Nobody (in this thread) said they had to be renewed one-by-one.

If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

Re: Should ALL laws sunset after 10 years?

There ya go. There's the workaround. Nobody (in this thread) said they had to be renewed one-by-one.

If the individual laws are being reviewed for their efficacy, then really, what's the point?

Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

Re: Should ALL laws sunset after 10 years?

Originally Posted by haymarket

Perhaps they did not see it as you do?

I don't think anyone can argue that FDR was trying to follow the constitution. He wanted to use the crisis of the Depression to grab all sorts of powers for the federal government that cannot be found by even the most expansive honest interpretation of the commerce clause etc